Sergeant Crowley, the sole class act in this trio, helps the handicapped Professor Gates down the stairs, while Barack Obama, heedless of the infirmities of his friend and fellow victim of self-defined racial profiling, strides ahead on his own.

Friday, July 31, 2009

You North Carolinians may recall that about 40 New Black Panthers invaded Durham

during the early days of Duke Lacrosse:

"This is a hate crime, and we want a conviction," declared Malik Zulu Shabazz, the national chairman of the New Panthers, a black separatist group based in Atlanta that is disavowed by the original Black Panther Party. "We are mad and fired up. We demand justice, and we will have justice, one way or the other."

Dressed in black berets and military-style fatigues, several in the group donned bulletproof vests and ammunition belts and holsters that were empty. At least two wore long knives in scabbards strapped to their legs.

There is no doubt that this was one of the worst cases of voter intimidation the Department has seen in decades, but it was against militant black defendants, not white defendants. This is exactly the kind of situation that upsets the traditional civil rights community, which does not believe that federal voting rights laws should be used to protect white voters.

The Department’s weak and belated explanation for the dismissal of this suit is frankly absurd.

The Department’s spokeswoman says that “the facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims.” Really?

Then why is the Department refusing to allow the trial team who actually investigated the “facts and the law” or the chief of the Voting Section who supervised the investigation to brief members of Congress?

We all know why – because those lawyers would dispute the spurious claim being made by their political superiors….

The message from the Justice Department with this dismissal is that if you are a member of a black hate group, you can intimidate, threaten, and hurl racial epithets at white voters and poll watchers and the Justice Department will give you a pass.

We all know that if it had been the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Brotherhood at the polls in Philadelphia acting in this manner towards black voters, Associate Attorney General Perelli and Attorney General Holder would never have even considered dismissing the case.

They would be bragging in the press about their pursuit of a civil injunction against all of these defendants, and would be pressing the Criminal Division at Justice to indict them on criminal charges.

Now that the beer summit is a part of history, let's look at what was accomplished by the foregoing set of events that should have never been more than a routine police assignment. A white police officer, along with the entire Cambridge, Massachusetts PD, was maligned by a black Harvard professor and a black President of the United States.

A white woman neighbor of the professor, who called the police to report a possible burglary, publicly has been termed a racist and has been harassed to the point of breaking down in tears during a press conference.

Professor Gates has plenty of publicity to help him with his upcoming documentary on race relations in America and President Obama had a major photo op in an attempt to spin his shocking comments into something positive.

There was no handshake between the cop and the professor; no apology from the president or the professor; and there was no chance for the Press to interview the parties together. The only words spoken publicly after the beer fest were from Sgt. Crowley, who said: "We have agreed to disagree."

Well, wasn't that the state of affairs before they met over a couple of brews? Unless there were some clandestine plans made to improve race relations in the future, this was a waste of time.

Evidently, Obama, the man who was going to bring us together, didn't even have enough influence with his buddy Gates to convince him to press the flesh with his arresting officer.

And, speaking of that arrest for disorderly conduct, why has so little been said about the charges being dropped?

If there was ever a case in which political influence wiped its feet on the law, this was it….

Somewhere in here, there’s a lesson to be learned about government distortion of private markets.

When government artificially inflate the value of a commodity in attempting social engineering, it usually either spends more money than they initially realize, leave the private sector holding the bag, and make themselves look foolish … at best:

The government suspended the explosively popular cash-for-clunkers program, fearing it would go broke before it could pay what it still owes dealers for a huge backlog of sales, according to congressional offices and a dealer group.

Suspension of the program was confirmed by Bailey Wood, legislative director for the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), which had been called Thursday night by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which administers the program. Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., confirmed as well, saying she had been told by congressional leaders.

Why was it “explosively popular”? It made worthless cars valuable again. The vehicles got $4500 for a brief window rather than their previous real value, in many cases a fraction of the government payout.

That inflated value prompted people to rush to their local dealers to use their government subsidy to buy new vehicles.

Unfortunately, Congress miscalculated how many people would be willing to squash their old car for that kind of boost in trade-in value. No harm, no foul, right?

Not exactly. …

Ed concludes:

Of course, no one has really explained why taxpayers should subsidize the destruction of gas-guzzlers (we do remember that we’re paying those ridiculous subsidies, don’t we?) that many of us couldn’t afford when they were sold as new, or that we had better sense than to buy.

No one explained why taxpayers should subsidize sub-prime loans for people who didn’t qualify to buy the houses they wanted ten years ago, either.

It’s yet another example of how government rarely learns from its own mistakes.

This one, fortunately, will be much less costly, but therefore also much less likely to teach people anything.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

... Much of America is petrified to bring up race, especially in public forums - the media, in particular.

But for exactly the opposite reasons Mr. Holder, the Obama administration and the brain trust of modern liberalism assert.

Americans, especially nonblacks, are deeply fearful that the dynamic is predicated on an un-American premise: presumed guilt.

Innocence, under the extra-constitutional reign of political correctness, liberalism's brand of soft Shariah law, must be proved ex post facto.

Think not? Ask the Duke lacrosse team, which had 88 of the school's professors sign a petition that presumed their guilt before their side of the story was known.

Even though the white athletes were exonerated and the liberal district attorney who pushed the case was dethroned, disbarred and disgraced, the professoriate that assigned guilt to its own students still refuses to apologize.

But it cannot act in good faith to redeem those it has destroyed in countless rushes to judgment. (Richard Jewell, R.I.P.)

The mainstream media choose to flaunt story lines that make white America appear guilty of continued institutional racism, while black racism against whites is ignored as an acceptable disposition given our nation's history.

This double standard provides a game board on which the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can thrive in perpetuity and ensures racial progress is slowed.

And that is why the Case of Sergeant Crowley vs. Professor Gates is so important.

As is expected from professional race baiters, Mr. Gates instigated a public brouhaha over race.

And Mr. Obama, a man who attended the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's racist sermons for 20 years, used the bully pulpit to grant his friend a national platform to condemn a man for doing his job. ...

He questioned KC Johnson’s truthfulness twice but disclosed no evidence to support his innuendo. )

Folks, as you can all can see by reading KC Johnson Now and its thread, I did not question KC's truthfulness.

What I questioned was KC's judgment which led him to conclude an obvious hoax by Jill Hopman “could have been correct.”

I continue to question KC’s judgment which led him to give credence to Hopman’s hoax, just as I question the judgment of all those who give credence to Crystal Mangum’s and Tara Levicy’s hoaxes.

( Moreover, by accusing KC Johnson of making up sources, John has cast a shadow over on any work that Professor Johnson has done that involves confidentiality, this despite the fact that both John and Joan Foster claim to admire Johnson’s contributions to the DL case. )

Nowhere have I said KC made up sources. Halkides' statement is nothing more than a false charge KC Johnson made up and whick Johnson and Halkides have repeated.

You can all see that by reading my posts and what the two professors have said.

I wish both professors and their supporters would stop making that false charge.

( When called on some of these matters, [JinC] either ignored them or brushed them aside.

In doing these things he has made it a little bit harder for those of us who want blogging to be held to as high a standard as traditional journalism. ... )

“Traditional journalism?”

Is that what Halkides calls what the N&O did when trashing the lacrosse team, helping frame three of its members, and now still participating in a cover-up of what it did?

By "traditional journalism" is Halkides thinking of Dan Rather and CBS's Texas Air NG story based on forged documents from CBS's "unimpeachable" anonymous source who turned out to be a Democratic party activist and hater of President Bush?

( I wrote this post because [JinC] failed to live up to the standards of civility and adherence to the truth that he evidently expects of himself and others. )

Folks, the Irish have the right term for what professor Halkides is doing here: “pub blathering.”

If there's a prize for the Wisest Brief Comment on the story that began when Cambridge Police Sgt. Crowley responded to a breaking and entering call and the fallout since, I'll nominate Ex-prosecutor’s comment on the thread of Our Post-Racial President, Etc.

Police officers have a tough job. People call them for help and, then, want to fight them.

They never know when they'll be shot at or assaulted.

The surest way to get arrested is to be loud and argumentative or ask the magic question, as did Dr. Gates, "Do you know who I am?"

My experience with many, many police officers over the years is that arrest is a last resort for an argumentative citizen.

If Professor Gates had remained calm, he would not have been arrested.

In common parlance, his offense is called "contempt of cop."

President Obama was completely off base in his comments, as he is in much of what he does.

Ever notice that those who endorse high taxes and those who actually pay them aren’t the same people?

Consider the curious case of Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, who is leading the charge for a new 5.4-percentage point income tax surcharge and recently called it “the moral thing to do.” About his own tax liability he seems less, well, fervent.

Exhibit A concerns a rental property Mr. Rangel purchased in 1987 at the Punta Cana Yacht Club in the Dominican Republic. The rental income from that property ought to be substantial since it is a luxury beach-front villa and is more often than not rented out.

But when the National Legal and Policy Center looked at Mr. Rangel’s House financial disclosure forms in August, it noted that his reported income looked suspiciously low.

In 2004 and 2005, he reported no more than $5,000, and in 2006 and 2007 no income at all from the property. (bolds added)

The Congressman initially denied there was any unreported income. But reporters quickly showed that the villa is among the most desirable at Punta Cana and that it rents for $500 a night in the low season, and as much as $1,100 a night in peak season.

Last year it was fully booked between December 15 and April 15.

Mr. Rangel soon admitted having failed to report rental income of $75,000 over the years.

First he blamed his wife for the oversight because he said she was supposed to be managing the property.

Various people at various places have recently offered reasons for why Jill Hopman wrote her Charlie’s Pub hoax story.

From March ’06 when Hopman published it until May 24 of this year, I didn’t think much about her hoax or her motivation(s).

That was largely because her hoax was so quickly and thoroughly discredited that even Mike Nifong didn’t use it to slime the players.

When I did think about it, it was usually in conjunction with recalling how the Raleigh N&O, with no confirming witnesses, used Hopman’s hoax in a hit piece targeting the lacrosse players at a time when they were in great legal and physical peril.

When on May 24 of this year KC Johnson said Hopman’s story “could have been correct,” I thought more about KC’s motivations than Hopman’s.

And on July 6 when Chris Halkides endorsed what KC had said and castigated me for questioning KC’s “could have been correct” claim after which KC promptly linked to Halkides’ post, it was the two professors and not Hopman that I wondered about.

Since then I’ve listened to and read what many people, including many of you, are saying about Hopman, Johnson and Halkides.

I’ve said nothing about what I think Hopman’s motivations were.

When I’ve thought about motivations in connection with the Hopman hoax, it’s mostly been about the two professors’ motivations.

But I’ll offer one thought about Hopman’s "motivation" which I think is important to consider.

But first a few words about “motivation:” We should all get into the habit of using the plural “motivations.” It’s almost always an interacting complex of many factors – some much stronger than others – that lead us to act.

As to Hopman’s motivations, some have offered her “feminism” as one. Perhaps it was. I really don’t know.

But it’s a very safe bet there were many other feminists in Charlie’s the night of Mar. 25, 2006.

Yet only Hopman published a hoax piece. And no feminist in Charlie’s that night has ever come forward to publicly support the hoax.

So while I don’t rule out Hopman’s feminism as a factor, even a strong one, in impelling her to create and publish her hoax, I'm confident other factors contributed to what she did, and may have been more powerful motivators than "feminism."

That no other feminist in Charlie’s that night publicly endorsed the hoax and tried to hype it is to their credit, and a reminder that there are all kinds of feminists just as there are all kinds of bloggers.

I don’t plan to say more about Hopman’s motivations because there are many more important related matters to consider regarding the Charlie's hoax, with the motivations of Johnson and Halkides being two of them.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

On Friday, July 24, 2009 historian and blogger KC Johnson, co-author with Stuart Taylor of Until Proven Innocent (UPI), an account of the Duke lacrosse case, made a lengthy statement on the thread of this post.

KC’s statement follows in full after which I offer my responses below the star line.

KC Johnson said...

As I have said on a number of other occasions, I became involved in this issue only when a Durham-based blogger attacked me for not criticizing the Blythe article in the N&O. To my knowledge, this blogger (who publishes the John-in-Carolina blog) has never done any direct reporting on the incident. (He has said that he spoke with unnamed "crews" on the question, though I'm not aware of any media organization in which "crews" do reporting.)

I responded that in the course of researching the book, I had encountered a source who I trusted completely who said nothing happened; but that when I contacted Hopman, she stood by her story, and produced two other witnesses who confirmed her story. I considered my confidential source more credible than Hopman, who I don't know. So, as any readers of either DIW or UPI know, I never mentioned the Charlie's incident in either the book or in my blog posts, since I didn't consider it likely or even probably to have occurred in the way Hopman described. At the same time, since Hopman and two others stood by her story, since my source wasn't in a position to talk to the N&O at the time the article appeared, and since there were dozens of articles that clearly did violate principles of media ethics, it hardly seemed fair to criticize the N&O, either. (I have, of course, repeatedly criticized the paper for its pre-Nov. 2006 editorials, and for its "all-false" interview with Crystal Mangum.)

This approach struck me at the time, and continues to strike me, as the appropriate one on this issue. Yet the Durham-based bloger has gone on and on and on--first suggesting that Hopman couldn't have provided me with sources, then conceding that these sources probably existed but couldn't be credible, then ruminating that my refusal to label Hopman's allegations a "hoax" meant that I probably believed the allegations, and (most recently) referring outright to Hopman's story as a "hoax." (Again, to my knowledge, this Durham-based blogger has done no original reporting on the issue, even to the minor extent of contacting Hopman, despite the enormous importance that he apparently attaches to the matter.)

While UPI has been extensively reviewed, the only published source (to my knowledge) that has criticized the book for not mentioning the Charlie's incident is the many posts of the Durham-based blogger.

In the course of writing UPI, the entire manuscript had to be cleared by a libel attorney hired by the publisher. Even if I had been so inclined to label Hopman's story a "hoax," it's laughable to believe such a claim would have been allowed, with three people saying one thing (including one on the record) and one saying the opposite, and with a much tamer version of what strikes me as essentially an innocent event that conceivably could have been misinterpreted (a version that included a comment from a lacrosse parent) included in Newsweek.

Obviously, some bloggers are more cavalier when using an extraordinarily strong term like "hoax." Their credibility should be evaluated accordingly.

July 24, 2009 8:29 AM

********************************************

Folks,

KC’s comments are in italics and parentheses; mine are in plain.

( As I have said on a number of other occasions, I became involved in this issue only when a Durham-based blogger attacked me for not criticizing the Blythe article in the N&O. )

I did not attack KC for “not criticizing the Blythe article in the N&O.”

UPI claims “The N&O … distinguished itself after its lamentable first few articles in late March[.]” (p. 259, hardcover edition

I added:

That's an absurd statement. It grossly understates what the N&O really did in March.

It presents a characterization of the N&O's subsequent DL coverage which gives readers no hint of what the N&O's DL coverage was really like for weeks, and in some cases many months, after Apr. 1.

Folks, if you haven't already, please read KC Johnson Now. See for yourselves what I actually said.

( To my knowledge, this blogger (who publishes the John-in-Carolina blog) has never done any direct reporting on the incident. )

I can’t recall doing any reporting on what KC calls “the incident” before KC Johnson Now. I only began reporting and commenting on Hopman’s hoax when KC said he found her credible and thought her story could be "correct."

( He has said that he spoke with unnamed "crews" on the question, though I'm not aware of any media organization in which "crews" do reporting. )

News “crews.” News “teams” News “organizations.”

But KC Johnson's "not aware of any media organization in which 'crews' do reporting."

I had to smile. What about you?

( I responded that in the course of researching the book, I had encountered a source who I trusted completely who said nothing happened; but that when I contacted Hopman, she stood by her story, and produced two other witnesses who confirmed her story. I considered my confidential source more credible than Hopman, who I don't know. )

Yet KC also said Hopman “seemed credible” and that the “confidential witnesses” to whom she referred KC “corroborated in no uncertain terms” her story so that KC Johnson thinks it “could have beed correct.”

But he doesn't say that here, does he?

( So, as any readers of either DIW or UPI know, I never mentioned the Charlie's incident in either the book or in my blog posts, since I didn't consider it likely or even probably to have occurred in the way Hopman described. )

Again, I didn’t criticize KC for not mentioning “the Charlie’s incident” in UPI or his DIW blog posts.

I wish he’d stop repeating that falsehood.

( At the same time, since Hopman and two others stood by her story, since my source wasn't in a position to talk to the N&O at the time the article appeared, and since there were dozens of articles that clearly did violate principles of media ethics, it hardly seemed fair to criticize the N&O, either. )

Here KC's offering another variant of his false claim I attacked him for not publishing on the Stancill-Blythe story. He doesn't make the slightest attempt to respond forthrightly to what I actually said.

KC brings to mind Reagan’s gibe to Carter: “There you go again.”

( I have, of course, repeatedly criticized the paper for its pre-Nov. 2006 editorials, and for its "all-false" interview with Crystal Mangum. )

I wish KC had said he's praised the N&O for withholding for 13 months statements Mangum made during the Mar. 24, 2006 interview.

Mangum's statements included her claim the second dancer, Kim Roberts, was also sexually assaulted at the party but hadn't reported it for fear of losing her job. Also, that Roberts would do anything for money.

( This approach struck me at the time, and continues to strike me, as the appropriate one on this issue. )

I don’t doubt KC’s convinced what he’s done is “appropriate.”

But thoughtful people, including many close to the DL case, are asking why, against all the evidence to the contrary, KC concluded Hopman’s obvious hoax story “could have been correct?”

We don’t even know how KC determined his "witnesses" he apparently didn't communicate with until more than a year after "the incident" were even in Charlie’s the night of Mar. 25, 2006.

And KC's said nothing about interviewing any of the lacrosse players or their parents.

When is he going to talk about that?

( Yet the Durham-based bloger has gone on and on and on--first suggesting that Hopman couldn't have provided me with sources, then conceding that these sources probably existed but couldn't be credible, then ruminating that my refusal to label Hopman's allegations a "hoax" meant that I probably believed the allegations, and (most recently) referring outright to Hopman's story as a "hoax." )

I’ve already responded to all the rehashing KC’s doing here except the red herring he tosses out about my use of “hoax.”

In reading KC Johnson Now and my comments on its thread, you’ll see I never gave any credence to Hopman’s story. It was and is a false story meant to mislead. That’s what a hoax is.

I plan to continue using the term "hoax" and trying to persuade others that, contrary to what KC and Chris Halkides are saying, Hopman's story is a very obvious hoax.

( Again, to my knowledge, this Durham-based blogger has done no original reporting on the issue, even to the minor extent of contacting Hopman, despite the enormous importance that he apparently attaches to the matter. )

KC’s right about my not contacting Hopman. But then I didn’t contact Crystal Mangum before reporting she was a hoaxer.

On the matter of how much importance any of us should place on KC’s assertion he has witnesses who “corroborated in no uncertain terms” Hopman’s story which he believes “could have been correct” I’ll say much more soon.

And for now here are just two things I'm sure many of you know also:

1) - - - KC’s conclusion expressed on May 24 that Hopman’s story “could have been correct” and his persistence in that belief since tell us something important about his judgment.

2) - - - His “Charlie’s incident” claims have already been clipped and saved by attorneys for defendants accused of trashing the lacrosse players. Who would have thought even a few months ago that those attorneys would come to rely on KC Johnson and to a lesser degree Chris Halkides?

( While UPI has been extensively reviewed, the only published source (to my knowledge) that has criticized the book for not mentioning the Charlie's incident is the many posts of the Durham-based blogger. )

There he goes again.

If KC thinks repeating that falsehood often enough will get people to believe it, he’s right. Some do.

On the other hand, fair-minded people who’ve looked at what I’ve said don’t.

( In the course of writing UPI, the entire manuscript had to be cleared by a libel attorney hired by the publisher. )

Sure. That’s routine for a book such as UPI.

( Even if I had been so inclined to label Hopman's story a "hoax," it's laughable to believe such a claim would have been allowed, with three people saying one thing (including one on the record) and one saying the opposite, and with a much tamer version of what strikes me as essentially an innocent event that conceivably could have been misinterpreted (a version that included a comment from a lacrosse parent) included in Newsweek. )

You don't need me to tell you KC’s flailing here.

What he says brought to mind Raleigh N&O editor Linda Williams claim the N&O had to withhold Mangum's statements out of libel concerns.

Attorneys can say more about what KC says.

( Obviously, some bloggers are more cavalier when using an extraordinarily strong term like "hoax." )

I use “an extraordinarily strong term like ‘hoax’” only when it’s called for as it is for the stories told by Crystal Mangum and Jill Hopman.

( Their credibility should be evaluated accordingly. )

Most of you know people are wise to evaluate all bloggers credibility post by post.